Roman Multiculturalism and Imperial Multiculturalism

>They didnt believe other people were inferior to them, if they would then they wouldnt want to romanized them

Why couldn't they just tax noncitizens?

The Ancient Romans were negroids like myself and anyone that says otherwise is a Germanic

Did Romans really assimilate anyone, though? If they did, the results are pretty poor, are they not? I guess you've got France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Romania, and so on, but they're so far removed from being Roman colonies that they might as well be considered their own entities.

I would say China is far better example of assimilation. Or even Japan, really. The Romans did a terrible job. It's only assimilation through a progressive liberal American lense, where having basic rights and access to institutions means you're "assimilated." Most of these people definitely retained a lot of their heritage.

>replying to Dominicanposting

even noncitizens had all kinds of obligations to the state, corvee labor and such.

So no source?

Why you are so mad?

Rome wasn't really multicultural it was multiethnic but not multicultural.

It lasted so long because it assimilated other cultures and Romanized them.Celtic Britons to Romano Britons ,Greeks to Romani etc.

sure culture varied but Rome had a habit of making it their own like Christianity or the Briton's goddess that became the roman goddess Britannia.

It worked past its borders as well as people wanted to be Roman like the many Germanic tribes that joined the legions.

Why do people that clearly aren't informed on the subject insist on speaking the most about it?

First off OP, you need to be specific. Multiculturalism in a technical sense is different from multiculturalism in a 21st century political context.

nothing i said was wrong.

I mean, he's not entirely wrong.
Roman culture wasnt some uniform thing, and for the most part after they were conquered people continued doing what they had been doing for forever
But its also obviously true that Romanization did happen overtime, and was what led to Roman emperors coming from Gaul, Thrace, etc.
The failure to properly Romanize the Germanic tribes coming into the borders in the late 4th century and into the 5th ultimately ended up being the reason Rome was doomed.

They did, but just in other forms and amounts. Alot of places within the empire had different tax-obligations to the state.
For example the italian allies (i.e the majority of Italy up untill the social war) payed their taxes in the form of manpower to the military.

Well, romans hated them

Who is "them"?

Just because that user is a moron and what he said is incorrect doesn't mean I am insisting the opposite is true. Roman culture didn't replace native culture in large parts of the empire, period. It swayed that culture's evolution to varying degrees (colloquially referred to Romanization) but the native culture in majority of non-italian provinces was still largely the native culture. Italian provinces were really the only provinces where Roman culture entirely supplanted native culture and you still had things like the pushback from the natives that manifested in the form of social wars.

Most of what you said was wrong. Do your homework before you contribute.

>I guess you've got France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Romania, and so on, but they're so far removed from being Roman colonies that they might as well be considered their own entities.
Of course they are, they've endured a millennium and a half of cultural evolution and foreign influences. Those lands were all absurdly Romanized and culturally indistinguishable from Italy in the 450s. That's an absurd level of success.

>Those lands were all absurdly Romanized and culturally indistinguishable in the 450s
See, that's the part that I doubt. Even different regions within a small country tend to be significantly different, and you're telling me that a person couldn't tell if they were in Gaul or Dacia? Some common ground, maybe. But indistinguishable? I call bullshit.

>still largely the native culture
so France and Spain speak a Celtic languages they dont speak a romance languages

>language = culture

brainlet.jpg

See this exactly why you're incapable of enriching yourself. You want to argue, make gotcha posts, and paint complex historical phenomena that took place over centuries in a single absolute. I used the word "majority" for that precise reason and I also qualifed myself by defining romanization. Please fuck off. It's very clear you are not well versed on the topic so you can't contribute much in the way of insight.

how can you distinguish two people who look the same physically, wear the same clothes, speak the same language, etc?

>multiculturalism
It was nothing like what we consider multiculturalism today. The territories included in the Roman Empire were culturally homogenous and autonomous to a great extent. How many Britons do you think you would find in Judea?

>majority of non-italian provinces was still largely the native culture

no it wasn't it was irreversibly changed by the roman empire.You can see this in the spread of romance languages.They obviously spoke Latin in the end.The Celtic world shrunk to Ireland and picland and never recovered culturally.Art-style and jewelry become roman.

The idea that Spain's Celtic culture was still intact by the time the western roman empire collapsed is laughable

Are you serious? People don't look the same physically at all, and they did so even less so way back then. It's even crazier to think that all these people spoke some kind of standardized Latin, when most of them spoke the vulgar kind in different ways. I won't even get into the fact that people have different habits, behaviors, values, etc.

Rome assimilated the people it conquered. MENA was conquered by Muslims who supplanted Roman culture with Arabic culture (itself heavily inspired by the Romans anyway) and Britannia hadn't been a part of the Empire long enough to be fully Romanised yet but every other area of the Empire still bore the marks of Roman culture into the modern era.

... which is a completely different fucking thing from saying the provinces were "indistinguishable."

If you are European please inform me of the differences between Arkansas and Mississippi culture.

If you're American please inform me of the differences between Languedoil and Languedoc culture.

Obviously I used indistinguishable as a hyperbole. My point was they had the same basic hallmarks and were more Romanic than not, not that they were literally copypastes.

I could tell you about the vast differences in culture between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Unless you were Canadian yourself, or even if you were and had just never been out to the Maritimes, you'd likely find each group indistinguishable from each other.

Stop same fagging for attention.

So why did Britain fuck up when it comes to Australia and Canada? Why are they no longer considering themselves British?

>Obviously I used indistinguishable as a hyperbole
Maybe don't do that when we're posting about history?
How does that pertain to the topic at hand?
>Unless you were Canadian yourself, or even if you were and had just never been out to the Maritimes, you'd likely find each group indistinguishable from each other.
And this is notable because?... I wasn't aware that we were playing at judging things lacking all fucking information. So your argument is that when you have no experience of two things you can't say what makes them different? Woah, what a breakthrough there, buddy. And if we took a retarded aboriginal and showed him different pictures from relatively civilized places on the globe, he's likely to think they're the same too. Whether it's New York or Tokyo, it's not likely to make much of a difference to someone in that position. But because we're not batshit fucking insane, we don't use that as a standard by which to make judgments as to whether or not two places are similar.

The World Wars and the political structure of Dominionhood, mostly. Both the Canadian Corps and the ANZACs fought terrible, nation-defining battles during WWI and WWII further solidified them as nations apart. As Dominions, they were considered separate realms ruled in personal union rather than integrated parts of the British Empire.

The point is that regional cultures don't serve to distinguish from the whole, only from the parts.

So basically, Britain fucked up on its colonial strategy?

you got to think that parts of hungary, the ex-yugo countries and most of northern africa were heavily romanized.

>The point is that regional cultures don't serve to distinguish from the whole, only from the parts.
You must be aware of what sophistry this is. Doesn't serve... when? It depends what you're talking about, now doesn't it? If we're talking about regions having Roman presence and being Romanized, obviously we look out for shared characteristics and we try to draw a level of similarity. But that does not mean that we're going to call distinct provinces - neither of which are originally Roman, neither of which come from the same population and culture even - the SAME. Like, yeah, I get it. You could be a real fucking cunt and start saying that people from one neighborhood of Rome weren't the same as those from another, and that there were class differences, and bla bla bla. But we aren't being this autistic right now. We are talking about vast stretches of lands hundreds of kilometers apart.

Not particularly. The idea of Dominionhood was seen as a compromise that allowed the Crown to maintain control over the regions while still allowing self-rule to the colonies and preventing another American Revolution. Much of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand still see themselves as Britishesque, as seen by their full association with the Commonwealth and it's supranational organizations. British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealander youth, for example, can get working visas far more easily than other countries, and Dominion citizens with a grandparent who had British citizenship and get a special visa for Britain and streamlined naturalization.

The Balkans apart from Greece was almost entirely Latin speaking before the Slavs came in en masse. You had Latin speaking enclaves as far down as Crete up to like the 20th century.

You are being this autistic right now. Roman culture was as nuanced as modern culture, but you're not going to go around saying that Marseilles and Caen have strong regional identities that preclude them from being the same culture. Distinguishing features of provincial culture in the Roman state are blown out of proportion because you're examining them in the vacuum of history.

Yeah, of course, there's no difference at all. It's not like people in the modern cities of France share a history, go to the same public schools where they're taught the same things, share the same standardized language, etc. It's not like their developments are comparably similar.
No, this is surely the same as two regions that were ravaged by war and subsequently romanized that previously had nothing to do with one another.
This isn't about Roman culture itself being nuanced, because these people weren't exactly "Roman." You realize that even in modern Romania, there are still traditions and even words that come down from Dacians - nearly two thousand years later. And you're going to tell me that only a few decades after they were conquered by the Romans, they were the same as the Romans? Seriously.

...

Please explain to me how that's moving goalposts, you fag. Stop trying to be cute and funny and instead sustain your idiotic arguments.

>And you're going to tell me that only a few decades after they were conquered by the Romans, they were the same as the Romans? Seriously.
Rome reigned over Europe for five hundred years you retard. Nobody's talking about a 'few decades'.

French has only been the standard language in France for some two centuries.

>Rome reigned over Europe for five hundred years you retard.
Except not. You can argue that Gaul was closer to Rome due to its long time as a province, but other places were at a far greater distance and were provinces for far lesser a time. Dacia was only a province from 106 to 275. And this is close to Rome (relatively) compared to other places like Syria.
>French has only been the standard language in France for some two centuries
Your fucking point? It's being taught in school RIGHT NOW, which means that the generation being brought up (Mohammeds aside), are going to be speaking the same exact tongue, regional accents aside. In writing it will be entirely indistinguishable. Beyond that, they have an identity grounded in the same nationalistic myth, with all that that comprises.
And you, you brainless mongoloid, are comparing this to different places - or shall we put it in more comparable but anachronistic terms, "countries" - whose only similarity is being invaded by the same people and having the same culture being violently inflicted upon them. That only makes them similar insofar as they suffered that same fate. That's it. The similarity begins and ends at how much effort Rome put into establishing their own culture there and bringing in colonists. That is to say, they're markedly different fucking places.

Your argument has gone from "Rome didn't assimilate" to "Roman culture was not uniform" to "In this particular instance, with these uncommon circumstances, I can beg the question of cultural homogeneity."

Please give me actual quotes instead of made up ones. I'm relatively sure my argument was the same from the start: that the provinces may have been romanized, but that they are in no way to be treated as indistinguishable when the people from the respective regions likely acted very different and spoke a very different Latin no matter what political system was imposed on them.

>Did Romans really assimilate anyone, though? If they did, the results are pretty poor, are they not?
>... which is a completely different fucking thing from saying the provinces were "indistinguishable."
>And you're going to tell me that only a few decades after they were conquered by the Romans, they were the same as the Romans? Seriously.

Are you retarded or just completely devoid of knowledge regarding european history?
Western european culture, even with a millenia and a half of germanic overlordship is still centered on an almost intrinsic (albeit evolved) roman identity.
Our morals, religion, laws and even our very identity are anchored to roman values and ideas. Roman identity have been so successful in europe that it got exported far beyond the actual borders of the empire.

>It worked past its borders as well as people wanted to be Roman like the many Germanic tribes that joined the legions.
Wanting a piece of the cake that is the roman empire =/= wanting to be roman. Otherwise the goths etc would have assimilated instead of successfully negotiating to keep their tribal and military structures within the empire.

The goths were different compared the earlier Germanic tribes of the 3rd and 4th centuries.The Romans handled their settlement poorly and as consequence the Goths beat the eastern Roman empire in open battle giving them a stronger hand to negotiate.

I can't really find a better thread on this but what are your guys thoughts on this video (and this channel's historical content in general i guess)? youtube.com/watch?v=5JcZsNxT2BM

I tried searching venatios on desuarchive and only got like one result. And I guess animals from different cultures in Rome counts as multicultural or something.

Maybe if the Romans hadn't treated the Goths like garbage, forcing them to sell their kids into slavery for a loaf of bread, then maybe they'd have been a bit more open to negotiating with the Romans.

>sure culture varied but Rome had a habit of making it their own like Christianity
Christian Rome is Roman in name only.